If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

HOWEVER, there is an argument weighing slightly more to the QB being more difficult to follow in general.

I'm thinking of the Chuck Knoll / Bradshaw, Landry / Staubach, even the Shula / Griese combos as probably arguments favoring the QB as being more difficult to replace.

And in current times, though the chapter is unfinished, the Patriots will be finding out which is more difficult after the Belichick / Brady era is over.

But those may all be exceptions, I don't know.

Knoll continued as Steelers HC for another 8 years following Terry Bradshaw's retirement, but could not come close to returning his team to a serious contender status. Yet, taking over for Knoll, it took Cowher only a couple years to bring Steelers to back to a perennial powerhouse, sustaining that level for his 15 years as HC, with multiple QBs under Center. Conversely, a very young rookie HC Tomlin followed quite nicely in Cowher's shoes, with the same QB Cowher coached his last 3 years as HC. That sways the argument in favor of the QB being more difficult to replace, at least in the Steelers case.

Similarly, Landry continued as Cowboy's HC 10 more years after Staubach retired. And although he had several more winning seasons--including 3 consecutive NFCChampionship losses the first 3 seasons following Staubach's retirement--he could never again attain what he had with Staubach as QB. Whereas, following in Landry's footsteps, HC Jimmy J. took the team to a SB win 4 years after taking over.

Now, Shula's experience was different, He did have a lot of success in many regular seasons after his SB-winning QB Bob Griese retired 1980.

And he did have Marino, arguably the greatest passing QB of all time.

And although Shula's last SB win was the 1973 season, his subsequent teams--with and without Griese and Marino-- won tons of games and made the playoffs 12 more seasons, including 2 more trips to the SB in the 80s (losing both). He still holds the career record as HC with the most total wins (347) in the most consecutive seasons (33), which will likely never be broken, given that in the modern NFL era coaches just don't remain HCs for that many years anymore

.
And while it's true that Shula's coaching style of run-the-ball-and-overpowering-defense, from his beginning in the early 60s until he drafted Marino in 83, meant that Griese was the so-called "game managing QB", it's also true that that was the prevalent winning style in the NFL until the late 90s, and it's also true that Shula never won another SB after Griese retired.

Marino complicates this argument somewhat, especially since he failed to reach more than 1 SB--and failed to win that--even though his entire 17 year career was under two multiple Super Bowl-winning HCs, Shula and Jimmy Johnson.

On the other hand, even though Miami has had a couple decent seasons since Shula and (4 years later) Marino retired, it's never come close to being the Shula (or Marino) Dolphins, and they've never scared anybody in the league like they did in either the 70s or the 80s.

So, the OP's question, while interesting, is difficult to answer with conviction. "It depends" is likely the correct answer, but it's too squishy for most of us here.

In the case of Coughlin / Eli, although I'm thrilled with what both have given us on balance as a tandem, I'd have to lean towards Eli as being more difficult to replace. A great replacement HC could possibly oversee a dominant defense that ultimately produced in the 2 SB victories. But it was Eli who stood in the pocket (and escaping when he absolutely, positively, had to) in the final 2-3 minutes of each SB, fielding an 80 yard drive in each case, including an iconic pass play in each drive. HCs , no matter how ingenius they be, can not do that.

Contracts don't dictate who the best player is either. Sometimes teams overpay to avoid letting a guy hit the open market. All the Ravens did was actually make it better for the QBs that are better than Flacco when their deals are up.

And why do you think they did that? To make life difficult for other GMs? Really?

And why do you think they did that? To make life difficult for other GMs? Really?

No, they did it because that is the current market. Every year or so you have a new highest paid player in the NFL, but it in no way means they are the best player in the sport. It just means the market went up since the last time a player was the current highest paid player.

No, they did it because that is the current market. Every year or so you have a new highest paid player in the NFL, but it in no way means they are the best player in the sport. It just means the market went up since the last time a player was the current highest paid player.

Just to be clear. I in no way whatsoever, believe Flacco to be the "best player" in the NFL.

But the Ravens--or most Super Bowl winners for that matter (except the 2000 Ravens ironically enough)--don't agree with your diminishing the importance of the QB's role in their SB victory. It's been pretty well documented already that Flacco's new contract increased exponentially--by tens of millions of dollars--
as the direct result of their Super Bowl win. In fact, there were some rumblings before the 2012 season began that it was time for the Ravens to consider a new QB if they failed to get to the Super Bowl.

That hardly qualifies Flacco's new contract as simply a function of "the current market". You imply with your comments here that no matter which starting QB is up for a new contract, that QB will be automatically the next highest paid player in the NFL. No offense, but that's an ignorant assumption.

There are many factors that go into each new contract, in each new year. Simply because a player is now up for a new contract does not mean that player will get the newly highest contract for his respective position.

I understand the importance of the QB, I was commenting on an earlier post that stated the QB that wins the SB is the best QB in football which is utter nonsense. As far as Flacco, I know he isn't the best but he won the SB at the tight time for his career. And , no, I don't expect every QB to get a higher contract, but the top QBs that have rings will keep trading the title for highest paid NFL player.

I understand the importance of the QB, I was commenting on an earlier post that stated the QB that wins the SB is the best QB in football which is utter nonsense. As far as Flacco, I know he isn't the best but he won the SB at the tight time for his career. And , no, I don't expect every QB to get a higher contract, but the top QBs that have rings will keep trading the title for highest paid NFL player.

What does that mean? "When you win the SB, you are the best QB in the league". That is nonsense. When you win the SB it just means you were the best team that year. It doesn't automatically dictate any individual as the best player!

Hello! Anybody in there? Your comparing one of the younger elite QB who has all the chances in the world to win 1 or 2 SBs to a guy whose career is over.

Um, excuse me I wasnt aware Eli had announced his retirement today.Maybe not now. But that's why I said WHEN he retires. When you win win the SB, your the best QB in football. He's already got as many SBs as LT

He's not the best in the generation NOW but he's quite capable of getting 1 or more SBs

I understand the importance of the QB, I was commenting on an earlier post that stated the QB that wins the SB is the best QB in football which is utter nonsense. As far as Flacco, I know he isn't the best but he won the SB at the tight time for his career. And , no, I don't expect every QB to get a higher contract, but the top QBs that have rings will keep trading the title for highest paid NFL player.